Mild Rant and Question about UFC Contracts

[Benoitthegr8]

Randy Couture is the ultimate example of a guy who was never happy, and tried to renegotiate his pay after every fight -- regardless of what his previous contract said.

True, I raise you 1 Quinton Rampage Jackson... the guy wasn’t ever happy unless he was leaving said promotion

 

[EndlessCritic]

True, I raise you 1 Quinton Rampage Jackson... the guy wasn’t ever happy unless he was leaving said promotion

Yep. Signed with Bellator then tried to get back into the UFC, fought Maldonado, then had to leave again lmao.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

Because one party has more leverage than the other. Why would a business put itself at a disadvantage when they run things.

Why shouldn't a fighter be allowed to fight elsewhere under contract? Well, I don't know.. maybe because the UFC is investing resources into a fighter for X number of fights for a future return. Allowing them to fight elsewhere means you are giving smaller promotions free advertisement. Allowing them to fight elsewhere could inadvertently damage your product if say they get their ass kicked by artem lobov in BKFC.

The only part of the contract I do not agree with is how long the UFC can keep you signed. They essentially have the right to indefinitely keep you under contract for life if you retire.

The other shady thing they do is with contract extensions before a big fight. The UFC won't ever allow a valuable fighter to progress in ranks if they won't sign a contract extension. You are indebted to the UFC for life or until you have no value to them anymore.

 

[spannered]

How they can be cut? Because there is a clause that says something like “if you lose X times, the UFC is allowed to terminate your contract”. As simple as that.

I trained with a guy called Ben Wall. You haven't heard of him, but he got a 3 fight deal. He's a LW that stepped in short notice at WW and proceeded to get KOd by a huge WW in about 2 minutes. He was offered one more fight, and lost that. He was cut, so the 3 fight deal isn't for 3 fights if you lose the first two.

The rule of thumb SEEMS to be that you have to at least lose two in a row, but there's been examples of FWs getting contracts scrapped after a win when Dana was obviously thinking of abolishing the division.

There honestly doesn't seem to be a reason why they get guys signed for 3 fights (or more), at least not reasons in the fighter's best interests, because it just means the UFC can hold you to a contract, but your next fight can be your last at any point in the contract.

There's 7 zillion clauses in the contracts that will have your contract canned if you breach one in any way, but fighters can be cut regardless if the UFC think you aren't worth your value. Considering 60 fighters are about to get their walking papers, I bet a big chunk of them aren't on a two or three fight losing streaks.

 

[Source]

I have no expertise on this matter; everything I 'm about to say is just my subjective impression.

The commonsense definition of a contract is an obligation on each of the parties involved such that each has to do certain things. When a fighter signs a contract with the UFC, they are promised a certain number of fight offers with a certain base pay per fight, and sometimes additional incentives. Once the contract is fulfilled, either a new contract will be signed, or the UFC and the fighter will go their separate ways.

Assuming that the above is close to reality, how is it that a fighter can just be given the boot, even when they still have fights left on the contract? Commonsense would dictate that the UFC has to tolerate them until the contracted fight offers are made. I mean, if you can be cut even though you have fights remaining, a multi-fight "contract" doesn't seem any better for a fighter than just agreeing to one fight at a time.

Equally concerning is that apparently the UFC can prevent a fighter from going to go to another organization while they are still under contract with them.

How the hell can this be fair?! The UFC can either kick you out of the contract at will, or prevent you from pursuing other MMA opportunities! A fair contract would allow that if the UFC can dismiss you at will, you should be able to dismiss them at will as well. Unless I'm missing something, under UFC contracts, the UFC holds all the cards! Individual fighters are just pawns that they get to control, whereas the fighters have virtually no power!

Is this the way it is with contracts in general, or is it something unique to the UFC or MMA?

The thing about contracts are the are determined by the language specific to each contract.

 

[MMAudit]

That doesn't sound right. If they had to pay him the same amount anyway, why cut him?

base is hypothetically 50k for 3 fights
or hypothetically 100k for win (50k base, 50k win )

150k > 300k payout for UFC

cheapest way out really


look what he did to his title shot ... and they payed big big money that day